HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.21.2016 Agenda
Terry L. Baker, President Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President
John F. Barr Wayne K. Keefer
LeRoy E. Myers
100 West Washington Street, Room 226 | Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735 | P: 240.313.2200 | F: 240.313.2201
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS June 21, 2016
Agenda
10:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 14, 2016
10:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:15 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION EASEMENT RANKINGS FY2017 Eric Seifarth and Chris Boggs (related documentation)
10:45 A.M. FOREST MITIGATION BANK APPROVALS – Stephen Goodrich and Fred Nugent
(location maps) 11:00 A.M. CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO MACK TRUCK, INC. /VOLVO
Susan Small (aerial of property)
11:10 A.M. BID AWARD (PUR-1317)
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CHEMICALS FOR VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS - Rick Curry and John Easterday (bid tab)
11:20 A.M. BID AWARD (PUR-1311)
LEACHATE HAULING FROM THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT FOR
DISPOSAL – Rick Curry and Dave Mason (Bid tab)
11:30 A.M. HOTEL RENTAL TAX FUNDING REQUEST – MARYLAND SYMPHONY
ORCHESTRA – James Hovis, Michael Jonnes, and Emily Socks (report)
11:45 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
11:55 A.M. CLOSED SESSION (To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline,
demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials
over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals; to consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State; and to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter.)
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form
Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Agricultural Preservation Easement Rankings FY 2017
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING
PRESENTATION BY: Eric Seifarth and Chris Boggs, Dept. of Planning & Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves the priority ranking as recommended by the Advisory Board and to forward to Annapolis the top 10 farms on the ranking list.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation purchased easement program is very competitive and with the continuing state budget crisis funds are limited for this easement cycle.
Each application is ranked by the Advisory Board using the approved priority ranking system. After the
farms have been ranked and placed on the priority list, the County sends the list of farms to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Board. Easements are purchased in order from the priority list
until funds are exhausted.
DISCUSSION: A law which was passed in the 2009 legislative session and which became effective July 1, 2009 requires the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) and the
Counties to maintain confidentiality for our easement applicants. The MALPF and its county partners
must maintain the confidentiality of financial information and rankings of individual landowners related to the acquisition of an agricultural easement interest by MALPF in their properties until the end of an
annual easement acquisition cycle. Therefore only the County Commissioners have the Excel spreadsheet of rankings by the Advisory Board. The public copy lists only the names of applicants. The County Attorney’s office previously confirmed that we must comply with the new law.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding from the state for FY 2017 will total approximately $16 million. There may be additional Federal funds available. The county will have an opportunity to contribute funds in Fall
2016 in a 60/40 matching mechanism whereby the state contributes the 60% portion and the county the
40% portion. Our funds would be from the local ag transfer tax and possibly a portion of funding from the Installment Payment Program. A decision would be made by the Board of County Commissioners by late
October, 2016.
CONCURRENCES: The Agricultural Advisory Board has approved the rankings of these applications and the limit of 10 applications being forwarded to Annapolis.
ALTERNATIVES: Change ranking and/or number of applicants submitted. ATTACHMENTS: Priority Ranking List, Ranking Checklist
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: PDF County Map of Applicants
Weddle
Gardenhour
Salgado
Miller, Jay & Robin
Miller, Myron et al
EDDN LLC
Winters
Strite
Shank
Bowers
Long
Winders
JA HorstHorst, Brent et al
Clearview Acres
Lanhardt
Forsythe
Naile
Hopkins
Horst, Keith et al Hagerstown
Boonsboro
Smithsburg
Williamsport
Keedysville
Funkstown
Sharpsburg
Clear Spring
2017 MALPP Applicants
®
0 2.5 5 7.5Miles
WARNING!: This map is for internal use by the Washington County Planning Department. It is not forgeneral distribution to the public, and should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereonare from various public agencies which may have use restrictions and disclaimers
The parcel lines shown on this map are derived from a variety of sources which have their own accuracystandards. The parcel lines are approximate and for informational purposes ONLY. They are not guaranteedby Washington County Maryland or the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations to be free oferrors including errors of omission, commission, positional accuracy or any attributes associated with realproperty. They shall not be copied, reproduced or scaled in any way without the express prior writtenapproval of Washington County Maryland Planning and Zoning Department. This data DOES NOT replacean accurate survey by a licensed professional and information shall be verified using the relevant deeds,plats and other recorded legal documents by the user.
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000Feet
Printed: Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Printed by: cboggs
APPENDIX D
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION CHECKLIST
FOR EASEMENT ESTABLISHMENT
APPLICATION NO. APPLICANT’S NAME
The following criteria will be listed with a possible point value next to each criterion. To the right of the
possible point value is a place to assign the total number of points that is applicable to the specific parcel being considered in relationship to that particular criterion.
I. AGRICULTURAL STATUS
Objective: To determine whether the land is presently engaged in a viable farming operation, has a high productive capability, and is likely to stay in agriculture.
Possible Total Points Criteria: Points Value Assigned
Existing Parcel Size
( a ) 200 or more contiguous acres (1.0)*
( b ) 100 or more contiguous acres (.8)* but is characterized by special
capabilities or production as a result of special conditions
( c ) Less than 100 contiguous acres (.6)*
Soil criteria from Soil Capability Class Points ranging from
Using LESA System (0 - 25)**
*To calculate points to be assigned to this criterion multiply the possible soils point value by the point
value assigned under “Existing Parcel Size.”
**Using the LESA system ½ the point total under criteria are derived from soil capability class and ½ the
point total is derived from the soil productivity score.
Possible Total Points Criteria: Points Value Assigned
2. Agricultural Status (12) ___________
A. Lots developed or withheld since owner acquired ____________
Property, calculated as % of lots remaining Any developed lots up to 3 can be classified as family lots
Any acreage withheld will be penalized. 1. 100% (5)
2. up to 90% remaining (3) 3. up to 80% remaining (2)
4. up to 70% remaining (1) 5. Less than 70% (0)
B. District density. Greater than 300 acre block (7) _________________
3. Previous Applicant-Have they applied (1)
for easement sale before?
4. Proximity to other easement properties (25) (a) Contiguous (25)
(b) Less than or = 1/4 mile (20) (c) Less than or = ½ miles (15)
(d) Less than or = 1 mile (10)
(e) Less than or = 2 miles (5)
(f) Over 2 miles (0)
Weight system: Agricultural Easement (1.0)
Open Space (0.5)
5. Economic Viability (9)
a. Intensively farmed operation (5)
Moderately intensive operation (3)
Low intensity operation (1)
i. Type of farm operation_____________________________________________________
ii. Describe numbers of animals, etc. ___________________________________________
b. Water Availability
Excellent (4)
Good (3)
Marginal (1)
i. List natural water sources ___________________________________________________
ii. Number of wells __________________________________________________________
6. Is property in a Priority Preservation Area (5)
Yes (5)
No (0)
7. Soil Conservation Plan (0-5) _____________
8. Agricultural Miscellaneous (11) _____________
(a) In the owner “actively engaged” in the farm
operation ? 2 points
i. Describe role in farm operation_______________________________________________
ii. How many years__________________________________________________________
(b) Does the farm have long term chances
for success?/Adaptability to other ag uses. 2 points
i. Describe management plan _________________________________________________
ii. Other indications of adaptable uses __________________________________________
(c) Are best management practices (BMP) being used
On the farm? 5 points. Describe ________________________________
(d) Capital intensity. Is the equipment and
Facilities in good working order? 2 points
DEVELOPMENT STATUS
9. Relationship of the district to the municipal boundaries of incorporated places
within the Urban Growth Area or Town Growth Areas* (5 points)
For # 9, the following point system shall be used:
a. Less than or = .5 mile 0 points
b. Less than or = 1 mile 1 points
c. Less than or = 1.5 miles 2 points
d. Less than or = 2 miles 3 points
e. Less than or = 2.5 miles 4 points
f. Over 2.5 miles 5 points
10. A development intensity number will be calculated for each election district. This is computed by
dividing the number of residential subdivisions that have been approved in the 5 preceding years by the number of square miles in that election district. A point total shall be assigned as follows:
Development intensity Points
Over 12 5 points
9-12 4 points
6-9 3 points
3-6 2 points
1-3 1 points
less than 1 0 points
11. Competitive Bidding 2 points
The bidding will work as such:
a. The value of the easement is determined by MALPF. b. The discount is calculated by comparing the amount per acre you are willing to sell an easement verses the MALPF determined actual easement value. c. The percentage of discounted value adds points to your overall ranking.
50% or above you will receive 2 points
40 % up to less than 50% you will receive 1 1/2 points 30% up to less than 40% you will receive 1 point 20% up to less than 30% you will receive 1/2 point Less than 20% will receive 0 points
RANKOWNERPOTENTIAL # OF LOTSLOCATIONFARM TYPEACRESDISTRICT NO.SOILS/PARC (1)Lot Dev (2A)DENSITY (2B)PREV APP (3)PROX EASE (4)ECON VIABLITY (5)PPA (6)SOIL PLAN (7)AG MISC (8)DIST UGA (9)SUB ACTIV (10)COMPETITIVE BIDDINGTOTAL1 Bowers 7 WI Crop 52.09 AD-16-003 10.34
2 Clearview Acres 7 CS Dairy 128.09 AD-16-013 13.784
3 EDDN 7 BO Beef 180.61 AD-95-001 14.32
4 Forsythe 7 WI Crop 75.56 AD-16-005 7.374
5 Gardenhour Orchards 7 SM Orchard 158.53 AD-96-003 10.92
6 Hopkins 13 BP Beef 222.18 AD-08-005 16.83
7 Horst, Brent et al 7 CS Dairy 113.04 AD-16-002 15.472
8 Horst, Keith et al 7 CS Dairy 193.61 AD-16-010 11.792
9 JA Horst & Sons 7 CS Crop 109.44 AD-16-011 12.752
10 Lanhardt 7 WI Crop 123.22 AD-15-004 8.688
11 Long 7 WI Dairy 163.88 AD-90-018 12.52
12 Miller, Ethel Myron Fern 7 HN Dairy 71.25 AD-06-001 10.87
13 Miller, Jay & Robin 7 SH Crop 178.23 AD-07-006 12.08
14 Naile 7 BP Crop 192.66 AD-16-001 11.84
15 Salgado 7 CS Crop 145.68 AD-09-002 15.5
16 Shank 2 HN Beef 45.5 AD-90-027 8.70
17 Strite 14 SM Crop 140.04 AD-90-019 12.63
18 Weddle 17 HG Crop 348.575 AD-16-007 20.98
19 Winders 7 HN Beef 225 AD-90-079 17.50
20 Winters 6 SM Dairy 57.09 AD-92-003 11.53
POINTS POSSIBLE N/A 2924.3 25 5 7 1 25 9 5 5 11 5 5 2 105
PUBLIC COPY
``
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Conveyance of Real Property to Mack Trucks, Inc/Volvo
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Susan Small, Real Property Administrator
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt the Ordinance declaring the property
located approximately twelve hundred (1,200) feet south of its intersection with Maugans
Avenue as shown on a plat entitled “Volvo Way” (formerly Mack Truck Road) as surplus and
approve the conveyance of the same and authorize the execution of the necessary documentation
to finalize the conveyance.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County’s intent to convey this property was duly
advertised on May 17, 24, and 31, 2016, and the portion of Volvo Way consisting of 19,306 SF
can now be transferred to Mack Trucks, Inc./Volvo.
DISCUSSION: Mack Trucks, Inc./Volvo (the “Property Owner”) has requested
that the unused portion of the Volvo Way Right-of-Way be conveyed to it, for no monetary
consideration, so that it may construct entrance improvements to its property. The entrance
improvements consist of widening the existing entrance to provide three incoming lanes and
SWM improvements to the area.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.
CONCURRENCES: County Attorney, Director of Engineering and Construction
Management
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial of Property
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Vo lvo Way Rig ht -of-Way Conveya nce
¯Legend
- Existing County ROW
- Fee Simple County ROW to be Conveyed075150 225 300Feet
Proposed ConveyanceArea = 19,306 Sq. Ft.or 0.4432 Acres +/-
Vo lvo Way
MaugansAvenue
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FOREST MITIGATION BANK APPROVALS
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director
Fred Nugent, Parks and Environmental Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve Forest Mitigation Bank applications for the Town
of Boonsboro (FB-16-001) and Michael H. and Beth D. Shifler (FB-16-002)
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Forest banking became an additional method to meet forest
removal mitigation requirements when the County Commissioners approved an amendment to
the County’s ordinance in 2014. A forest bank is created when a property owner voluntarily
accepts restrictive easements on newly planted or existing forest. The forest bank owner can
then sell credits from the easement area to land developers who need credits to meet their
mitigation requirements for development approval. Procedural guidelines and forest quality
evaluation criteria are contained in the County’s Forest Conservation Ordinance. Planning staff
accepts and reviews applications, secures Planning Commission and County Commissioner
approvals, insures the recordation of easement documents, monitors the bank owners accounting
of credit sales and periodically inspects forest bank sites.
DISCUSSION: Approval is requested for applications from the Town of Boonsboro (FB-
16-001) and Michael H. & Beth D. Shifler (FB-16-002).
The Boonsboro application proposes 43.08 acres of easement on 40.36 acres of existing forest
and 2.5 acres of adjacent land with sufficient stock to develop into qualifying forest in the near
future through natural regeneration. The parcel is 152 acres in size and also contains the
Boonsboro wastewater treatment plant on the southern portion of the property. The parcel is
entirely within the municipal limits of the town. The existing forest has a wide variety of species
including Hickory, Oak, Beech, Black Cherry, Black Walnut, Black Locust, Hackberry and Ash.
There are no outstanding environmental features but sampling and evaluation indicate the
existing forest has a Priority structure value and a Priority 2 for retention due to the size of the
stand and the wildlife habitat it provides.
The Shifler application is for 18.72 acres of existing hardwood forest on a parcel of 36.61 acres
located on the south side of Swinging Bridge Road, midway between Hagerstown and
Boonsboro. The parcel also contains the Shifler dwelling which is located outside the proposed
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
easement area. The forest is a mixture of Oak, Black Walnut, Ash, and Hickory. The easement
will provide protection for a large area of steep slope and buffers for small streams and the
Antietam Creek
FISCAL IMPACT: Forest banking provides another alternative to the Payment in Lieu of
planting mitigation technique for property owners. The banking program has been incorporated
into duties of existing staff so no additional costs to the County are expected.
CONCURRENCES: Planning Commission has approved both applications
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS: Location maps
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Bid Award (PUR-1317) Grounds Maintenance for Various County Departments
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO , Buyer – Purchasing Department and
John Easterday, Superintendent at Black Rock Golf Course
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract to the responsible companies
with the responsive lowest bids that meet the specifications for each chemical item (as indicated
on the Bid Tabulation Summary). Tie bids were received for Item Nos. 13, 16 and 23, therefore, it is required that the chemicals be awarded based upon drawing lots in public, pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Washington County Procurement Policy Manual.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County accepted bids on May 25, 2016. The Invitation to Bid
was published in the local newspaper, listed on the State’s “eMarylandMarketPlace” web site and the County’s website. This contract primarily provides the needed chemicals for the Black Rock Golf Course, County Highway Department and Department of Water Quality; the City of
Hagerstown may utilize the contract. The contract term is one (1) year tentatively commencing
July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017.
Bidders were declared Non-Responsive if: a Bidder submitted two (2) prices for one (1) item, and/or if a Bidder submitted a substitute (equivalent) chemical that was not on the list of
approved chemicals, and/or if a Bidder submitted the wrong unit of measure pricing. Tie Bids
were received on three (3) chemicals (Item # 13, Item # 16, and Item # 23). Therefore, it is
required that the three (3) chemicals be awarded based upon drawing from lots in public, pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Washington County Procurement Policy Manual. DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted for the chemicals in various expense operating accounts. CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Matrix
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
Bid Tabulation Summary
Ite
m
#
Product Vendor Unit of
Measure
FY’ 16
Unit Price
FY’ 17
Unit Price
1 Acclaim Extra Crop Production Services Gallon $465.00 $458.80
2 Aqua Shade Helena Chemical Company Gallon $40.38 $38.29
3 Propiconazole 14.3% Helena Chemical
Company Gallon $54.00 $51.00
4 Propamocarb Hydrochloride
66.2%
Crop Production
Services Gallon $304.90 $287.74
5 Bensumec – 4LF Helena Chemical
Company Gallon $108.00 $108.00
6 Thiophonate Methyl 46.2%
Crop Production
Services
Gallon $46.00 $44.08
7 Aluminum Tris WDG 80% Crop Production
Services Pound $13.44 $13.73
8 Crossbow Crop Production
Services Gallon $45.24 $41.42
9 Chlorothanlonil 720 SFT 54.0% Crop Production
Services Gallon $29.00 $33.35
10 Chlorpyifos 4E 42.5% Genesis Turfgrass,
Inc. Gallon $40.82 $40.64
11 Dylox 420 SL Helena Chemical Company Pound $61.34 $61.00
12 Fore WSP Crop Production Services Pound $7.04 $6.95
13 Head Way Tie Bid Gallon $417.00 $417.00
14 Tebuconazole 3807% Crop Production
Services Gallon $54.95 $47.49
15 Imidacloprid 75 % Crop Production Services Case $281.00 $359.64
16 PCNB 40% Tie Bid Gallon $47.50 $48.95
17 Pendulum Aqua Cap Crop Production Services Gallon $53.68 $45.24
18 Trinexapac Ethyl 11.3% Genesis Turfgrass, Inc. Gallon $107.42 $104.80
19 Prograss Crop Production
Services Gallon $138.95 $122.22
Ite
m
#
Product Vendor Unit of
Measure
FY’ 16
Unit Price
FY’ 17 Unit Price
20 Provaunt SiteOne Landscape
Supply Case $537.52 $520.00
21 Glyphosate 41% Crop Production
Services Gallon $16.38 $10.99
22 Mefenoxam 22.5% Helena Chemical Company Gallon $336.00 $340.00
23 Talstar Tie Bid Gallon $34.18 $33.00
24 Trimec Classic Gensis Turfgrass, Inc. Gallon $35.45 $35.20
25 Paclobutrazol 22.3% Helena Chemical Company Gallon $157.95 $152.00
26 Phosguard Crop Production
Services Gallon $35.45 $15.55
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
1 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Item
No.Description/Formulation Estimated Annual
Usage/Case Type
Unit of
Measure Unit Price Note Unit Price Note
1 Acclaim Extra 2-Gallons Gallon $458.80 $491.70
2 Aqua Shade 5 Cases/4 x 1 Gallons
4 Gallons/Case Gallon $40.55 $43.72
3 Propiconazole 3 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $56.49 $52.40
4 Propamocarb Hydrochloride
66.2%
8 Cases/2 x 1 Gallons
2 Gallons/Case Gallon $287.74 $336.89
5 Bensumec – 4LF 5 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $114.00 $108.50
6 Thiophonate Methyl
46.2%
40 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $44.08 $45.99
7 Alumimum Tris WDG 80%10 Cases/4 x 5.5 lbs.
22 lb./Case Pound $13.73 $13.97
8 Crossbow 15 Gallons/2 x 2.5 Gal.
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $41.42 $44.56
9 Chlorothanlonil
54% 720 SFT
12 Cases/2 x 2. 5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $33.35 $34.76
10 Chlorpyrifos 4E
42.5%
2 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $46.66 $40.64
11 Dylox 420 SL 4 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $63.67 $65.35
12 Fore WSP 9-Cases/8 x 4 x 1.5 lb.
48 lb./Case Pound $6.95 $7.28
13 Head Way 4-Cases/2 x 1 Gallons
2 Gallons/Case Gallon $417.00 $400.17
Crop Production Services
Rosedale, MD
Genesis Turfgrass, Inc.
York, PA
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
2 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Item
No.Description/Formulation Estimated Annual
Usage/Case Type
Unit of
Measure Unit Price Note Unit Price Note
14 Tebuconazole
38.7%
23-Gallons/4 x 1 Gallons
5 3/4 Gallons/Case Gallon $47.49 $53.00
15 Imidacloprid 75%2-Cases/88x 1.6 oz Case Case $359.64 *$375.40
16 PCNB 40%6-Cases 2x2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $50.45 $48.95
17 Pendulum Aqua Cap 6-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $45.24 $55.00
18 Trinexapac – Ethyl
11.3%
2-Cases/2 x 2.5Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $129.00 $104.80
19 Prograss 9-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $122.22 $139.68
20 Provaunt 2-Cases
8 x 10oz.Case $570.00 $685.75
21 Glyphosate 41%4-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $10.99 $13.04
22 Mefenoxam
22.5%
2.5 Cases/2x1 Case
2 Gallon Cases Gallon $378.00 $350.00
23 Talstar 4 x 1-Gallons
4 Gallons/Case Gallon $33.00 $33.67
24 Trimec Classic 20-Gallons/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $36.95 $35.20
25 Paclobutrazol
22.3%
3-Gallons
2 x 1 Gallon Cases Gallon $172.22 $159.33
26 Phosguard 200-Gallons
2 x 2.5 Gallon Cases Gallon $15.55 *$18.00
Crop Production Services
Rosedale, MD
Genesis Turfgrass, Inc.
York, PA
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
3 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Notes:
Crop Production Services -
#15 - 11 cases 4x4x1.6 oz
#26 - Starphite 0-0-26 Label attached
Genesis Turfgrass, Inc.
None
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
4 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Item
No.Description/Formulation Estimated Annual
Usage/Case Type
Unit of
Measure Unit Price Note Unit Price Note
1 Acclaim Extra 2-Gallons Gallon $469.00 $569.82
2 Aqua Shade 5 Cases/4 x 1 Gallons
4 Gallons/Case Gallon $38.29 $43.54
3 Propiconazole 3 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $51.00 $56.50 *
4 Propamocarb Hydrochloride
66.2%
8 Cases/2 x 1 Gallons
2 Gallons/Case Gallon $315.00 $320.00 *
5 Bensumec – 4LF 5 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $108.00 $138.35
6 Thiophonate Methyl
46.2%
40 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $46.00 $44.00 *
7 Alumimum Tris WDG 80%10 Cases/4 x 5.5 lbs.
22 lb./Case Pound $13.75 $19.09 *
8 Crossbow 15 Gallons/2 x 2.5 Gal.
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $45.00 $50.61 *
9 Chlorothanlonil
54% 720 SFT
12 Cases/2 x 2. 5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $35.50 $5.90 *
10 Chlorpyrifos 4E
42.5%
2 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $43.00 $57.94
11 Dylox 420 SL 4 Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $61.00 $75.68
12 Fore WSP 9-Cases/8 x 4 x 1.5 lb.
48 lb./Case Pound $7.05 $9.84 *
13 Head Way 4-Cases/2 x 1 Gallons
2 Gallons/Case Gallon $417.00 $417.00
Helena Chemical Company
New Market, MD
SiteOne Landscape Supply
Cleveland, OH
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
5 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Item
No.Description/Formulation Estimated Annual
Usage/Case Type
Unit of
Measure Unit Price Note Unit Price Note
14 Tebuconazole
38.7%
23-Gallons/4 x 1 Gallons
5 3/4 Gallons/Case Gallon $50.00 $75.00
15 Imidacloprid 75%2-Cases/88x 1.6 oz Case Case $385.00 $73.17 *
16 PCNB 40%6-Cases 2x2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $48.95 $189.52
17 Pendulum Aqua Cap 6-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $54.75 $73.82
18 Trinexapac – Ethyl
11.3%
2-Cases/2 x 2.5Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $108.25 $140.98 *
19 Prograss 9-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $138.50 $191.66
20 Provaunt 2-Cases
8 x 10oz.Case $736.00 *$520.00
21 Glyphosate 41%4-Cases/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $14.50 $22.12 *
22 Mefenoxam
22.5%
2.5 Cases/2x1 Case
2 Gallon Cases Gallon $340.00 No bid
23 Talstar 4 x 1-Gallons
4 Gallons/Case Gallon $33.00 $38.81 *
24 Trimec Classic 20-Gallons/2 x 2.5 Gallons
5 Gallons/Case Gallon $35.75 $27.40 *
25 Paclobutrazol
22.3%
3-Gallons
2 x 1 Gallon Cases Gallon $152.00 $199.99 *
26 Phosguard 200-Gallons
2 x 2.5 Gallon Cases Gallon No Bid $23.08 *
Helena Chemical Company
New Market, MD
SiteOne Landscape Supply
Cleveland, OH
PUR-1317
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals
(Various County Departments)
6 Bids Opened: 05-25-16
Notes:
Helena Chemical Company -
#20 - Provaunt represents 8x12 oz case (No 8x10oz packaging available)
SiteOne Landscape Supply -
#3 - #10160225 LESCO Spectator Ultra 1.3 2.5 gal
#4 - #291002 Proplant 1 gal
#6 - #10441225 LESCO T-storm 2.5 gal
#7 - #79435029 Prodigy Signature 80Dg 5.5 lb.
#8 - #10045225 Candor 2.5 gal
#9 - #084897 Manicure Ultra 82.5% 5 lbs
#12 - #172874 Fore 80WP 4x1.5 lb
#15 - #79381549 Bandit 75WSP 4x4x1.6oz(cs)
#18 - #83013999 TNEX Pgr 1270 2.5 gal
#21 - #069289 Prosecutor Pro 2.5 gal
#23 - #83013788 Bifenthrine 7.9% 1 gal
#24 - #10446225 Three Way 2.5 gal
#25 - #83014020 Tide Paclo 2Sc Pgr 1 gal
#26 - #082982 Lesco Green Flo Phyte 2.5 gal
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Bid Award (PUR-1311) – Leachate Hauling from the Solid Waste
Department for Disposal
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Buyer – Purchasing Department and
Dave Mason, P. E., Deputy Director – Solid Waste Department
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a primary Leachate Hauling contract for the
Solid Waste Department to AmTran, Inc. of Baltimore, MD based on the responsive,
responsible bidder with the lowest total lump sum amount of $249,888.00 and, as permitted in
the Invitation to Bid, to award a stand-by contract to A. C. & T. Co., Inc. of Hagerstown, MD based on the responsive, responsible bidder with the next lowest total lump sum amount of $256,045.00.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The bid was advertised in the local newspaper, listed on the
State’s eMaryland Marketplace website and on the County’s website. The contract period is for
a one (1) year period tentatively commencing July 1, 2016, with an option by the County to
renew for up to two (2) additional consecutive one (1) year periods with the first term ending
June 30, 2017. The County guarantees neither a minimum/maximum of calls nor quantity of
material for this contract. Twenty-eight (28) persons/companies registered and downloaded the
bid document on-line. Two (2) bids were received as indicated on the bid tabulation matrix.
The scope of services to be provided by the contractor includes loading, hauling, delivery, and
unloading leachate to Spirit Services located at the Department Water Quality’s Conococheague WWTP. The leachate is transported from the Resh Road Landfill, Rubble Landfill, Old City/County Landfill.
The following hauling history (in gallons) is established at each location:
YEAR Resh Cell
4 & 5
Resh
N-1
Resh
N-2 & N-3
Rubble
Cell 1
Old City/
County
Station
40
West
2011 2,447,700 247,000 627,100 2,493,200 4,379,300 14,480,651
2012 3,213,500 318,500 565,500 2,112,500 3,731,000 11,210,754
2013 2,878,630 182,465 510,700 2,116,165 3,150,600 11,400,037
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
2014 2,567,300 132,000 323,500 1,412,300 2,637,665 13,559,886
2015 1,637,450 87,700 237,700 848,010 2,334,080 12,553,951
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: The Solid Waste Department’s budgeted funds for this contract are as
follows:
Proposed 2017
Location Budget 2016 Actual 2016 Budget Resh $37,250 $50,071.00 $37,250
Rubble $19,950 $19,538.00 $19,950
Old City $39,870 $42,695.00 $39,900
40West $147,000 $154,120.00 $161,700
CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Matrix
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
PUR-1311
Leachate Hauling
From County Landfills for Disposal
Bids Opened 05-25-16
Location
No.
Location
Description & Quantity
No.
Gallons
Price/
Gal.
Total
Price
Price/
Gal.
Total
Price
Current
Contract
Price
1
Removal (loading/hauling/unloading)
from Resh Landfill (Cells 4, 5, N-1, N-2
and N-3) to Spirit Services at the
Conococheague Wastewater Treatment
Plant
3,000,000 $0.01 $30,000.00 $0.01249 $37,470.00 $0.01257
2
Removal (loading/hauling/unloading)
from the Rubble Landfill to Spirit
Services at the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1,500,000 $0.0075 $11,250.00 $0.01249 $18,735.00 $0.01257
3
Removal (loading/hauling/unloading)
from the Old City/County Landfill to
Spirit Services at the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant
3,000,000 $0.0115 $34,500.00 $0.01249 $37,470.00 $0.01257
4
Removal (loading/hauling/unloading)
from the 40 West Landfill to Spirit
Services at the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant
13,000,000 $0.0133952308 $174,138.00 $0.01249 $162,370.00 $0.01257
Total Lump Sum Bid
AmTran, Inc.
Rosedale, MD
A.C.&T. Co., Inc.
Hagerstown, MD
$249,888.00 $256,045.00
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Hotel Rental Tax Funding Request, Maryland Symphony Orchestra
PRESENTATION DATE: June 21, 2016
PRESENTATION BY: James Hovis, Director, Office of Community Grant
Management, Michael Jonnes, Executive Director, Maryland Symphony Orchestra, Emily Socks,
Director of Advancement, Maryland Symphony Orchestra
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the request for Hotel Rental Tax funding
from the Maryland Symphony Orchestra in the amount of $________, for direct expenses
associated with the 31st Annual Salute to Independence at Antietam National Battlefield to be
held on July 2, 2016.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Maryland Symphony Orchestra has submitted a request for
Hotel Rental Tax funding to support the 31st Annual Salute to Independence which is held at the
Antietam National Battlefield. This year’s event will be held on July 2, 2016. The amount of
funding requested for this event by the Orchestra is $30,000.
DISCUSSION: The Salute to Independence at Antietam National Battlefield is
marquee event for Washington County with approximately 30,000 visitors attending annually.
“Americans for the Arts” estimates the annual economic impact for this event at $1.1 million.
The Washington County Convention & Visitors Bureau reports that the hotel occupancy rates for
this weekend are consistently at 90%, as compared to 75% for other July weekends. Many hotels
in Washington County report being fully booked during the event.
The total event budget for 2016 is set at $242,000. The Maryland Symphony Orchestra has
secured funding from many private sources for this event totaling $102,541. They will also
receive in-kind contributions of $109,459 from many community partners and the Antietam
National Battlefield.
The Board of County Commissioners has provided financial support this event historically. In
2015, the Board of County Commissioners contributed $30,000 towards the direct expenses of
the event. The Orchestra is requesting the same amount of funding for 2016.
This event meets all 7 of the Board of County Commissioner’s goals and criteria for the use of
Hotel Rental Tax Funds. The Maryland Symphony Orchestra has proven to be a very responsive
and responsible grantee to the Office of Community Grant Management. There are no issues of
outstanding obligations to the County that would prevent the Orchestra from receiving funding.
The Maryland Symphony Orchestra’s 2015 Hotel Rental Tax Grant Report shows that last year
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
23,000 people attended the event with 800 estimated hotel rental nights purchased. It is the
recommendation of the Washington County Office of Community Grant Management that this
application be approved in an amount determined to be appropriate by the Board of County
Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Hotel Rental Tax Fund will be reduced by the amount of this
award.
CONCURRENCES: Gregory B. Murray, County Administrator, Washington County,
Maryland
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the Maryland Symphony’s request for Hotel Rental Tax
Funding.
ATTACHMENTS: FY2015, Maryland Symphony Orchestra Hotel Rental Tax Grant
Report
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A